56
| 196 views | www.guardian.co.uk
The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.
Oooo look what I found...
Oooo look what I found...
[/quote]
It seems to suggest that the last 250 years don't mean shit compared to the last 20000.
It seems to suggest that the last 250 years don't mean shit compared to the last 20000.
It seems to suggest that the last 250 years don't mean shit compared to the last 20000.
[/quote]
Hey, everyone. Otester's figured it all out by looking at a graph. Problem solved.
It seems to suggest that the last 250 years don't mean shit compared to the last 20000.
Hey, everyone. Otester's figured it all out by looking at a graph. Problem solved.
This graph illustrates measurements and estimations of temperatures in Greenland in the last 20k years. This comes from a study of Greenland's snow accumulation rate, all part of Ice age research and this thing called Young Dryas.
Completely unrelated to Climate change science as it focuses on global climate warming up rate, instead of localized ancient weather and snow.
This is equivalent as refuting climate change by providing evidence that winter exists in Denmark and that temperatures fall instead of going up as would have predicted global warming science.
Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
This graph illustrates measurements and estimations of temperatures in Greenland in the last 20k years. This comes from a study of Greenland's snow accumulation rate, all part of Ice age research and this thing called Young Dryas.
Completely unrelated to Climate change science as it focuses on global climate warming up rate, instead of localized ancient weather and snow.
This is equivalent as refuting climate change by providing evidence that winter exists in Denmark and that temperatures fall instead of going up as would have predicted global warming science.
Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
Was it much much colder 20 000 years ago ? Yeah and 200 000 000 000 years ago it was much warmer, there were plants and dinosaurs everywhere, so what ?
Two questions matter to anyone who passed public school physics curriculum :
1. Is the planet warming up ? Data suggests it does.
2. What is the source ? Solar activity ? Greenhouse gas ? Magic fairies ?
Any critics towards established explanation of greenhouse gasses being the cause have to show a different explanation, as simple as that.
And so far humanmade climate change critics DO NOT PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, instead focusing on nitpicking and criticising the only scientific explanation, as long as they do that they are full of shit.
As soon as critics put up a decent aternative hypothesis they are being proven wrong in a matter of days.
Was it much much colder 20 000 years ago ? Yeah and 200 000 000 000 years ago it was much warmer, there were plants and dinosaurs everywhere, so what ?
Two questions matter to anyone who passed public school physics curriculum :
1. Is the planet warming up ? Data suggests it does.
2. What is the source ? Solar activity ? Greenhouse gas ? Magic fairies ?
Any critics towards established explanation of greenhouse gasses being the cause have to show a different explanation, as simple as that.
And so far humanmade climate change critics DO NOT PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, instead focusing on nitpicking and criticising the only scientific explanation, as long as they do that they are full of shit.
As soon as critics put up a decent aternative hypothesis they are being proven wrong in a matter of days.
Oooo look what I found...
[/quote]
Here's another interesting fact taken from this graph. It took 10k years to go from 57 to 30°C and stabilize. That would suggest an average change rate of about 0.0027 degrees increase per year (to be taken tentatively considering some drastic changes admittedly occurred in short periods of time). We are currently experiencing temperature rise of about 0.13 to 0.22 degrees per decade or 0.013 to 0.022 degrees per year.
-Wiki.
Oooo look what I found...
Here's another interesting fact taken from this graph. It took 10k years to go from 57 to 30°C and stabilize. That would suggest an average change rate of about 0.0027 degrees increase per year (to be taken tentatively considering some drastic changes admittedly occurred in short periods of time). We are currently experiencing temperature rise of about 0.13 to 0.22 degrees per decade or 0.013 to 0.022 degrees per year.
-Wiki.
Here's another interesting fact taken from this graph. It took 10k years to go from 57 to 30°C and stabilize. That would suggest an average change rate of about 0.0027 degrees increase per year (to be taken tentatively considering some drastic changes admittedly occurred in short periods of time). We are currently experiencing temperature rise of about 0.13 to 0.22 degrees per decade or 0.013 to 0.022 degrees per year.
-Wiki.
[/quote]
If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position.
Here's another interesting fact taken from this graph. It took 10k years to go from 57 to 30°C and stabilize. That would suggest an average change rate of about 0.0027 degrees increase per year (to be taken tentatively considering some drastic changes admittedly occurred in short periods of time). We are currently experiencing temperature rise of about 0.13 to 0.22 degrees per decade or 0.013 to 0.022 degrees per year.
-Wiki.
If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position.
Was it much much colder 20 000 years ago ? Yeah and 200 000 000 000 years ago it was much warmer, there were plants and dinosaurs everywhere, so what ?
Two questions matter to anyone who passed public school physics curriculum :
1. Is the planet warming up ? Data suggests it does.
2. What is the source ? Solar activity ? Greenhouse gas ? Magic fairies ?
Any critics towards established explanation of greenhouse gasses being the cause have to show a different explanation, as simple as that.
And so far humanmade climate change critics DO NOT PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, instead focusing on nitpicking and criticising the only scientific explanation, as long as they do that they are full of shit.
As soon as critics put up a decent aternative hypothesis they are being proven wrong in a matter of days.
[/quote]
No, you heathens!!! It's the wrath of GOD!! Repent, Repent!!! ..Oh Wait..... C'mon Scientists always changes their mind with new data comes in, it's not nitpicking. Our weather data only goes back so far, how do we know this just isn't apart of the warming cycle? My money is on increased solar activity.
Was it much much colder 20 000 years ago ? Yeah and 200 000 000 000 years ago it was much warmer, there were plants and dinosaurs everywhere, so what ?
Two questions matter to anyone who passed public school physics curriculum :
1. Is the planet warming up ? Data suggests it does.
2. What is the source ? Solar activity ? Greenhouse gas ? Magic fairies ?
Any critics towards established explanation of greenhouse gasses being the cause have to show a different explanation, as simple as that.
And so far humanmade climate change critics DO NOT PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION, instead focusing on nitpicking and criticising the only scientific explanation, as long as they do that they are full of shit.
As soon as critics put up a decent aternative hypothesis they are being proven wrong in a matter of days.
No, you heathens!!! It's the wrath of GOD!! Repent, Repent!!! ..Oh Wait..... C'mon Scientists always changes their mind with new data comes in, it's not nitpicking. Our weather data only goes back so far, how do we know this just isn't apart of the warming cycle? My money is on increased solar activity.
No, you heathens!!! It's the wrath of GOD!! Repent, Repent!!! ..Oh Wait..... C'mon Scientists always changes their mind with new data comes in, it's not nitpicking. Our weather data only goes back so far, how do we know this just isn't apart of the warming cycle? My money is on increased solar activity.
[/quote]
While the data shows a slight cooling trend in solar activity ...
No, you heathens!!! It's the wrath of GOD!! Repent, Repent!!! ..Oh Wait..... C'mon Scientists always changes their mind with new data comes in, it's not nitpicking. Our weather data only goes back so far, how do we know this just isn't apart of the warming cycle? My money is on increased solar activity.
While the data shows a slight cooling trend in solar activity ...
Not really. What usually happens is the precision gets more refined over time. 99% of the time, new research finds the mainstream theories were right all along, and gives greater certainty to exactly how right they were.
This would be the first time in human history an entire field consensus was studied this intently and overturned. Solar activity isn't going to do it. You can estimate radiative forcing on a napkin, and it's not even close - that's why no publishing scientists are proposing such an idea, and how I know you must have heard it from something else.
[quote user=cadpig]Our weather data only goes back so far, how do we know this just isn't apart of the warming cycle?[/quote]
Well, for one, the ice that is melting has been around for at least a million years. A cycle means this has happened before, and we know quite well it hasn't. The plant and animal material we have in the polar regions are much older - it hasn't been warm since the dinosaurs died.
It's a little more vague going back millions of years, but humans only care about the weather of the last 10,000 years... that's what you need for agriculture and society. We know the last 10,000 years have been incredibly stable. We also know the ice-age cycle we are in is supposed to be cooling over the next 20,000 years. It's certainly not part of any cycle.
[quote user=otester]If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position.[/quote]
An ice-core chart isn't going to show the current temperature. A current direct measurement would be off that chart. I see this a lot, especially with CO2 data. People don't realize CO2 data is also off the chart. If scientists had to graph the last century, every chart would look like a straight line going up at the end, and it would lose its usefulness as a chart of past variation... you'd have to increase the height and past fluctuations would be squished, due to the recent spike.
Not really. What usually happens is the precision gets more refined over time. 99% of the time, new research finds the mainstream theories were right all along, and gives greater certainty to exactly how right they were.
This would be the first time in human history an entire field consensus was studied this intently and overturned. Solar activity isn't going to do it. You can estimate radiative forcing on a napkin, and it's not even close - that's why no publishing scientists are proposing such an idea, and how I know you must have heard it from something else.
Well, for one, the ice that is melting has been around for at least a million years. A cycle means this has happened before, and we know quite well it hasn't. The plant and animal material we have in the polar regions are much older - it hasn't been warm since the dinosaurs died.
It's a little more vague going back millions of years, but humans only care about the weather of the last 10,000 years... that's what you need for agriculture and society. We know the last 10,000 years have been incredibly stable. We also know the ice-age cycle we are in is supposed to be cooling over the next 20,000 years. It's certainly not part of any cycle.
An ice-core chart isn't going to show the current temperature. A current direct measurement would be off that chart. I see this a lot, especially with CO2 data. People don't realize CO2 data is also off the chart. If scientists had to graph the last century, every chart would look like a straight line going up at the end, and it would lose its usefulness as a chart of past variation... you'd have to increase the height and past fluctuations would be squished, due to the recent spike.
Have you read this?
I was fascinated to learn that the "scientists" responsible for the spread of uncertainty in the climate debate were the exact same guys, using the exact same methods, as the guys who told everyone that tobacco was harmless, acid rain was bullshit, CFCs didn't harm the Ozone layer, SDI was a good idea etc.
Have you read this?
I was fascinated to learn that the "scientists" responsible for the spread of uncertainty in the climate debate were the exact same guys, using the exact same methods, as the guys who told everyone that tobacco was harmless, acid rain was bullshit, CFCs didn't harm the Ozone layer, SDI was a good idea etc.
If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position.
[/quote]
Ok, I will repeat again in simpler terms. The graph means nothing in the context of global warming. At the very least look at the celsius axis, it's in the minuses. That cannot be the global temperature, right?
If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position.
Ok, I will repeat again in simpler terms. The graph means nothing in the context of global warming. At the very least look at the celsius axis, it's in the minuses. That cannot be the global temperature, right?
Ok, I will repeat again in simpler terms. The graph means nothing in the context of global warming. At the very least look at the celsius axis, it's in the minuses. That cannot be the global temperature, right?
[/quote]
It's the temperature of the ice at a specific time, and iirc it's the area most susceptible to "climate change".
Ok, I will repeat again in simpler terms. The graph means nothing in the context of global warming. At the very least look at the celsius axis, it's in the minuses. That cannot be the global temperature, right?
It's the temperature of the ice at a specific time, and iirc it's the area most susceptible to "climate change".
Damn, you make me doubt my communication skills.
Edit: I wish I had quoted the stupid you had written before you edited it out.
Damn, you make me doubt my communication skills.
Edit: I wish I had quoted the stupid you had written before you edited it out.
The temperatures in Tropical region are not the same as northern colder regions.
Edit: If you're not looking at the whole planet at the same time, taking multiple samples all across the planet, you won't be able to come up with a figure that will tell you about the rate of temperature change. The new graph you posted, tells you temperatures varied slightly in Greenland, with a somewhat stable trend. That's all.
The temperatures in Tropical region are not the same as northern colder regions.
Edit: If you're not looking at the whole planet at the same time, taking multiple samples all across the planet, you won't be able to come up with a figure that will tell you about the rate of temperature change. The new graph you posted, tells you temperatures varied slightly in Greenland, with a somewhat stable trend. That's all.
[/quote]
Last 250 years pattern matches the global mean temperature records.
[quote user=deokanon]The temperatures in Tropical region are not the same as northern colder regions.
[/quote]
Last 250 years pattern matches the global mean temperature records.
MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
a super nova happens in a distant galaxy
HUMANS DID IT
MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
a super nova happens in a distant galaxy
HUMANS DID IT
[/quote]
Are you having a dificult time reading your chart? It shows a current increase about 3 times greater than any in the charted history.
The mean is around 31, not anything near current levels (which are the highest ever, according to your own chart). As others pointed out, local temperatures do see significant swings (especialy Greenland, which is susceptible to current changes), but the global average doesn't do that. When currents change, some regions warm as others cool. What we see now is record increases across the globe.
[quote user=otester]Last 250 years pattern matches the global mean temperature records.[/quote]
Which makes it completely unlike anything else in the past 10,000 years. Virtually every major region is warming.
[quote user=otester]If we hit the highest point ever on the graph (~7.5k years ago) again then maybe I'll reconsider my position. [/quote]
Since your chart shows we surpassed the highest point ever, have you reconsidered your position?
Are you having a dificult time reading your chart? It shows a current increase about 3 times greater than any in the charted history.
The mean is around 31, not anything near current levels (which are the highest ever, according to your own chart). As others pointed out, local temperatures do see significant swings (especialy Greenland, which is susceptible to current changes), but the global average doesn't do that. When currents change, some regions warm as others cool. What we see now is record increases across the globe.
Which makes it completely unlike anything else in the past 10,000 years. Virtually every major region is warming.
Since your chart shows we surpassed the highest point ever, have you reconsidered your position?
HUMANS DID IT
[/quote]
According to Obama they didn't.
Aliens?
[quote user=EricManning]
The mean is around 31, not anything near current levels (which are the highest ever, according to your own chart).
[/quote]
-31 ?
HUMANS DID IT
According to Obama they didn't.
Aliens?
The mean is around 31, not anything near current levels (which are the highest ever, according to your own chart).
-31 ?
.
.
[/quote]
Really? What's your source? How many instruments are there studying "average temperatures on Mars"?
Really? What's your source? How many instruments are there studying "average temperatures on Mars"?
[/quote]
Really? What's your source? How many instruments are there studying "average temperatures on Mars"?
[/quote]
www.statisticsIliterallyjustmadeup.com
Really? What's your source? How many instruments are there studying "average temperatures on Mars"?
www.statisticsIliterallyjustmadeup.com
.
[/quote]
I said if we do again.
.
I said if we do again.
.
I said if we do again.
[/quote]
We do every year.
.
I said if we do again.
We do every year.
We do every year.
[/quote]
We hit -32.5 on the GISP2 every year?
We do every year.
We hit -32.5 on the GISP2 every year?
Now I wonder how your gonna put temperatures on your chart if you no longer have any ice (one that keeps a record of past temperatures).
Edit: Still won't tell you much about global warming though.
Now I wonder how your gonna put temperatures on your chart if you no longer have any ice (one that keeps a record of past temperatures).
Edit: Still won't tell you much about global warming though.
Now I wonder how your gonna put temperatures on your chart if you no longer have any ice.
[/quote]
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist from Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and a member of the research team analysing the satellite data.
Now I wonder how your gonna put temperatures on your chart if you no longer have any ice.
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist from Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and a member of the research team analysing the satellite data.
Temperatures in Greenland have been increasing virtually every year, so of course we have gone well beyond the level you said would cause you to reconsider your position.
Temperatures in Greenland have been increasing virtually every year, so of course we have gone well beyond the level you said would cause you to reconsider your position.
Temperatures in Greenland have been increasing virtually every year, so of course we have gone well beyond the level you said would cause you to reconsider your position.
[/quote]
According to the graph we ain't hit ~ -29.5 since ~2000 years ago.
Temperatures in Greenland have been increasing virtually every year, so of course we have gone well beyond the level you said would cause you to reconsider your position.
According to the graph we ain't hit ~ -29.5 since ~2000 years ago.
The second chart includes more recent data, but you can see just the last couple hundred years creates a huge spike that overwhelms even a much shorter timespan. You can't really express much useful data if every chart is a straight line up at the end, and you have to expand the Y-axis to compensate (which squeezes the ancient temperatures you are most interested in).
I also see people argue that CO2 hasn't increased, because ice cores only show levels around 250. You have to explain that the current level is about 400 ppm, while ice-cores show 250 ppm was normal before the industrial revolution.
The second chart includes more recent data, but you can see just the last couple hundred years creates a huge spike that overwhelms even a much shorter timespan. You can't really express much useful data if every chart is a straight line up at the end, and you have to expand the Y-axis to compensate (which squeezes the ancient temperatures you are most interested in).
I also see people argue that CO2 hasn't increased, because ice cores only show levels around 250. You have to explain that the current level is about 400 ppm, while ice-cores show 250 ppm was normal before the industrial revolution.
The second chart includes more recent data, but you can see just the last couple hundred years creates a huge spike that overwhelms even a much shorter timespan. You can't really express much useful data if every chart is a straight line up at the end, and you have to expand the Y-axis to compensate (which squeezes the ancient temperatures you are most interested in).
I also see people argue that CO2 hasn't increased, because ice cores only show levels around 250. You have to explain that the current level is about 400 ppm, while ice-cores show 250 ppm was normal before the industrial revolution.
[/quote]
When you compare these two it seems to suggest CO2 doesn't make much of a difference to temperature overall and that possibly another reason could be behind both, maybe all the nukes been set off in the last 1/2 of the last century?
The second chart includes more recent data, but you can see just the last couple hundred years creates a huge spike that overwhelms even a much shorter timespan. You can't really express much useful data if every chart is a straight line up at the end, and you have to expand the Y-axis to compensate (which squeezes the ancient temperatures you are most interested in).
I also see people argue that CO2 hasn't increased, because ice cores only show levels around 250. You have to explain that the current level is about 400 ppm, while ice-cores show 250 ppm was normal before the industrial revolution.
When you compare these two it seems to suggest CO2 doesn't make much of a difference to temperature overall and that possibly another reason could be behind both, maybe all the nukes been set off in the last 1/2 of the last century?
Once again, you are looking only at one specific point on the globe, when CO2 is distributed around the entire globe. Although both graphs show the same sharp record jump at the end, a global measure of the planet's temperature shows a very stable 10,000 years, with a sharp increase right when CO2 and other greenhouse gases were thrown into the air.
Any single point on Earth is going to be "noisy" with temperature (thanks to wind and water currents shifting the temperature around)... the average global temperature is incredibly constant and stable.
The problem here is that you aren't being intellectually honest. You said you would rethink your position when we measured temperatures as warm as they were 7000 years. If you had understood your own graphs, you would have known we reached that point decades ago and continue to see record temperatures not seen in a million years on Greenland.
Now that your challenge has been met, you switch your argument.
This sort of mistake just shows you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject, and are just jumping on the position that 99% of scientists are wrong. You then seemingly want to cling to every strange theory thrown out, without even a basic idea of the mechanism or why we know CO2 is responsible for most of the observed warming.
Once again, you are looking only at one specific point on the globe, when CO2 is distributed around the entire globe. Although both graphs show the same sharp record jump at the end, a global measure of the planet's temperature shows a very stable 10,000 years, with a sharp increase right when CO2 and other greenhouse gases were thrown into the air.
Any single point on Earth is going to be "noisy" with temperature (thanks to wind and water currents shifting the temperature around)... the average global temperature is incredibly constant and stable.
The problem here is that you aren't being intellectually honest. You said you would rethink your position when we measured temperatures as warm as they were 7000 years. If you had understood your own graphs, you would have known we reached that point decades ago and continue to see record temperatures not seen in a million years on Greenland.
Now that your challenge has been met, you switch your argument.
This sort of mistake just shows you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject, and are just jumping on the position that 99% of scientists are wrong. You then seemingly want to cling to every strange theory thrown out, without even a basic idea of the mechanism or why we know CO2 is responsible for most of the observed warming.
1. Learn how to read and interpret the data
2. Study the complete record of global data (satelites, surface temperatures, historical records, ice cores, computer models)
3. Submit your conclusions for Peer Review.
If you're not prepared to do this, perhaps you could listen to the people that have.
1. Learn how to read and interpret the data
2. Study the complete record of global data (satelites, surface temperatures, historical records, ice cores, computer models)
3. Submit your conclusions for Peer Review.
If you're not prepared to do this, perhaps you could listen to the people that have.
[/quote]
[quote user=darkzevahc] Wolffe is a cock sucking cunt. Fuck off canuck.
[/quote]
You got tourettes, ese?
You got tourettes, ese?
[/quote]
word. now let's drive because public transit sucks ass.
word. now let's drive because public transit sucks ass.
[quote user=darkzevahc]Wolffe is a cock sucking cunt. Fuck off canuck.[/quote]
You got tourettes, ese?
[/quote]
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
You got tourettes, ese?
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
[/quote]
not to mention pablo is paul.
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
not to mention pablo is paul.
[/quote]
So we're not doomed after all, if Climate Change™ really happens we can all go to mars the artic and live with the penguins.
Penguins live in the Antarctic not Artic.
[quote user=n0body] you can make really strong glass from co2, only it needs immensely high pressures... this obviosuly disproves global warming. init
[/quote]
Depends if more money can be made from that than phony taxes.
So we're not doomed after all, if Climate Change™ really happens we can all go to mars the artic and live with the penguins.
Penguins live in the Antarctic not Artic.
Depends if more money can be made from that than phony taxes.
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
[/quote]
lol someone's angry today...
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
lol someone's angry today...
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
[/quote]
actually he's black, and for the record he stop being a pot smoker right about the time he got boring about 4years ago. comprende, ese?
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
actually he's black, and for the record he stop being a pot smoker right about the time he got boring about 4years ago. comprende, ese?
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
[/quote]
no i dont. listen if you are going to patronizingly going to use the word "ese" at least dont have the screen name "pablo420" when your actually "giant homosexual zero percent hispanic pot smoker"
[/quote]
Star trek online... Here I come.
Edit: Shard offline.
Star trek online... Here I come.
Edit: Shard offline.
[/quote]
Let's not do this, mmkay?
Let's not do this, mmkay?
Let's not do this, mmkay?
[/quote]
I think we're all pretty bored with that one now
Let's not do this, mmkay?
I think we're all pretty bored with that one now